Liverpool City Council (Prohibition of Smoking in Places of Work) Bill [Lords]
	Motion made,
	That so much of the Lords Message [19 May] as relates to the Liverpool City Council (Prohibition of Smoking in Places of Work) Bill [Lords] be now considered.

Andrew Robathan: I am delighted to hear that the Government have no plans to disband the Home Service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment, but does the Minister not agree that at a time when the Government are deploying extra troops in Afghanistan and Iraq and disbanding four infantry battalions, the Royal Irish Regiment's role is even more important? Is the Minister confident that, should there be a resumption of violence in Northern Ireland, sufficient troops will be available to deploy there to assist the Police Service of Northern Ireland?

Peter Hain: First, I would like to pay tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). As I have travelled throughout Northern Ireland and, indeed, across the border during this past month, I have not been surprised to find that he is viewed with considerable respect and affection for all that he has done.
	I have good meetings with the main parties and, provided that the Provisional IRA commits itself to ending all paramilitary activity and criminality, I remain hopeful of restoring the devolved institutions.

Sammy Wilson: Since the Secretary of State omitted to include what the Independent Monitoring Commission report said about IRA activity in Northern Ireland in his previous response, does he agree with the recent report of the IMC that says that the IRA is still involved in targeting, training, importing arms and financing its organisation? In the light of that, will he explain to the House and the people of Northern Ireland how giving a veto on political progress to the political representatives of the IRA is likely to change that mode of behaviour?

Charles Kennedy: Does the Prime Minister accept—I am sure that he does—that the key challenge is to bring Europe closer to its citizens but that a number of significant reforms can be begun here and now without significant treaty revision? For example, will he over the next few days be arguing the case for the opening up of the deliberations of the Council of Ministers, so that instead of meeting behind closed doors to make European law, we can see the discussions, in exactly the same way that we do in this House?In terms of this House and its procedures, has he given consideration to the all-party recommendations of the Modernisation Committee about scrutiny here of European conduct, so that we have better accountability from our Ministers when they go to the Council?

Tony Blair: I am not sure whether the vicar's powers or mine are most suitable for dealing with that issue. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments although I cannot honestly tell him what I think that the answer is because I do not know. However, I shall find out and get back to him.

Ian Davidson: Bonjour. What steps does the Prime Minister propose to take to measure the results that his Ministers achieve on a regular basis? Will he consider introducing a "Minister of the month" award? Will he accept from me a nomination for Douglas Alexander, the Minister for Europe, who has achieved so much in such a short time? I had not fully appreciated that putting Britain at the centre of Europe meant renegotiating the common agricultural policy, renegotiating the European budget and picking a row with France. He has my complete support.

Peter Hain: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the publication today of the White Paper, "Better Governance for Wales".
	Devolution has proved to be a success, both for Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom. By establishing the National Assembly for Wales in 1999, following the endorsement of a referendum, the Government have moved the decision-making process closer to the people.
	Six years on, the benefits can be clearly seen: record levels of employment, rising standards in education, and groundbreaking initiatives such as the Children's Commissioner, free bus travel for the over-60s and disabled, and Assembly learning grants. With equal numbers of male and female Members, and pioneering commitments to open government, sustainable development and equal opportunities, the Assembly has been a progressive institution attracting interest from around the world.
	After the experience of six years of devolution and two full sets of elections, it is now appropriate to review and improve the working of the Assembly, not to make change for change's sake but to ensure that it continues to meet people's needs in Wales and remains accessible and accountable to them.
	The White Paper therefore covers three key issues, which the Government believe need to be tackled to deliver better governance for Wales. It addresses the response of the National Assembly to the report of the commission on its powers and electoral arrangements, chaired by Lord Richard of Ammanford, and the commitments made in the Labour party's general election manifesto.
	First, the White Paper contains the Government's proposals for legislation to effect a formal separation between the Assembly and the Welsh Assembly Government. The lack of a clear separation between the Assembly itself and Assembly Ministers and the civil servants working for them has generated confusion about who is responsible for decisions. Under the corporate structure, Ministers are in the contradictory position of sitting as members of subject Committees meant to scrutinise their decisions.
	Secondly, the Government propose to give the Assembly, gradually over a number of years, enhanced legislative powers in defined policy areas where it already has executive functions.
	As a first step, the Government have decided, from now onwards, to draft parliamentary Bills in a way that gives the Assembly wider and more permissive powers to determine the detail of how the provisions should be implemented in Wales. That will not require any change to the Government of Wales Act 1998, but it will require a more consistent approach to drafting legislation for Wales.
	As a second step, we propose to put in place a streamlined procedure enabling Parliament to give the Assembly powers to modify legislation or to make new provision on specific matters or defined areas of policy within, and only within, the fields in which the Assembly currently exercises functions.
	Orders in Council conferring those powers would be made at the request of the Assembly Government, and would be laid by the Secretary of State and be subject to specific authorisation by both Houses of Parliament through the affirmative resolution procedures. That means that more legislation will be "made in Wales" and that the Assembly Government will be able to secure more effectively and more quickly the legislative tools they need to get on with the job of building a world-class Wales with a globally competitive economy and high-quality public services.
	Those enhanced legislative powers are adaptations of the current settlement and do not require a referendum. However, it may prove in the future that even those additional powers and streamlined procedures are still insufficient to address the Assembly's needs.
	The Government have therefore agreed to provide the option of further enhanced law-making powers. This would mean transferring primary legislative powers over all devolved fields direct to the Assembly. But, as a fundamental change to the Welsh devolution settlement, that option would require the support of the electorate through a post-legislative referendum, triggered by, first, a two-thirds majority of Assembly Members and, secondly, a vote in Parliament. The Government envisage no particular timetable for this, as it would be dependent on a consensus, which certainly does not exist at present.
	The history of Welsh devolution referendums is salutary. The big No vote in 1979 showed the dangers of conducting a referendum before sufficient consensus had emerged, and the Government remain conscious of the narrow majority in 1997, when it appeared that there was indeed such a consensus.
	I note that the Richard commission itself saw the acquisition of primary powers as a process that would take a number of years to achieve, and not before 2011. My view is that the new Assembly arrangements should be allowed to bed down through the next Assembly term—between 2007 and 2011—and that there is no case for considering a referendum until at least the following Assembly term of office.
	The people of Wales will wish to be convinced of the reasons for going beyond the new enhanced law-making powers before being invited to vote in a referendum. We therefore need some years' experience of the new system before we can make a proper assessment of when that might occur.
	Finally, we propose to deal with a weakness in the existing additional-Member electoral system for the Assembly. There is widespread concern that the current operation of the regional list system in Wales is damaging the vital relationship between Members and their constituents, and indeed causing unnecessary tensions between Members themselves.
	Losing candidates in constituency elections being able to become Assembly Members through the regional list, and thus claim to act as a Member for that very same constituency, both devalues the integrity of the electoral system in the eyes of the public and acts as a disincentive to voting in constituency elections. We therefore propose to amend the provisions of the 1998 Act to prevent individuals from simultaneously being candidates in constituency elections and eligible for election from party lists. Candidates will have to make a choice.
	I believe that the proposals in the White Paper provide a practical, common-sense road map to sensible, staged improvement of the existing arrangements. One of the key reasons why the transition to devolved government in Wales has been smooth is that we have moved at a pace determined by the people of Wales.
	The White Paper reflects that guiding principle. It will provide a reformed structure that is more accountable, more participatory and more effective, giving more powers to the Assembly and leading to better governance for a better Wales. I commend it to the House.

Bill Wiggin: May I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement, although I regret that I did not have quite as much time to read it as the BBC, which was quoting him at 6.43 this morning? Given that he is a former Leader of the House, I was surprised by that, but I do not wish to be discourteous.
	The Secretary of State referred to the three key areas in the White Paper in which changes are proposed. We welcome the proposal to separate the legislature and the Executive and to improve effective scrutiny, but the bulk of his statement dealt with the enhancing of legislative powers and changes to the electoral system, about which we have profound concerns. Why did he say, that there is no consensus for a referendum today, and that it would be lost? Why has he made it clear that the White Paper proposes moves that would lead to full legislative powers for the Assembly? Why is he not interested in the views of the Welsh people after six years of Assembly government?
	It would seem that the Secretary of State has recognised the need for the referendum, but why is he determined to put the cart before the horse? Why has he proposed to empower the Assembly in areas such as health and education? Is he pleased with their record? Is he pleased that waiting lists have increased by 80 per cent. under Labour, and that 61 schools have closed since 1997? Is he pleased that Wales will not have tuition fees? It seems odd that he has chosen to enhance powers in the areas that are failing the people of Wales the most. Is that because the White Paper is really intended to empower Labour in Wales, rather than the people of Wales?
	How does the Secretary of State square all this with condensing consideration of a Bill and all its stages into a one and a half hour debate? What does he expect will be the impact on the role of Welsh MPs? What opportunities will there be for them to amend an Order in Council, or to comment on Welsh legislation? Does he therefore propose to address the size of Welsh constituencies, as a result of their inability to determine Welsh legislation, or would that not be in the interests of the Welsh Labour party? Welsh MPs are elected by the people. Has the Secretary of State learnt from his friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to go for stealth empowerment of the Welsh Assembly? If so, why has he increased the number of Wales Office staff in London?
	I now turn to probably the most spiteful part of these proposals—the changes in the electoral system. How many Labour Assembly Members will be standing as first-past-the-post candidates, considering that all of them stood as such candidates, and as list candidates, at the last election? Why did he not see the anomalies when he fought for this system in the first place? Will list Members be able to stand as first-past-the-post Members in other constituencies? Does he not agree that his comments on the Assembly electoral system are equally applicable to any proportional representation system?
	The Secretary of State said that he has moved at a rate determined by the people of Wales, but the reality is that he has not asked them about this issue because he knows that they will regret this stealthy empowerment, spun as further powers semi-skimmed. In fact, this is simply a way of avoiding a referendum. Why has he rejected the increase in Assembly Members advised by the Richard commission? He has given the impression of providing semi-skimmed legislative powers, but this White Paper is the full-fat proposal, stuffed with E numbers and leading to all the attendant health repercussions. I can understand why he said what he said. This is the man who called the EU referendum a tidying-up exercise, so the whole House will understand why he is afraid of referendums.

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman described the list proposals to prevent candidates from standing in both the list and the constituency categories as spiteful. Let me quote to him evidence submitted to the Richard commission by the Electoral Reform Society. The society said:
	"A system in which candidates can lose elections but nevertheless win seats undermines respect for the electoral process."
	It went on:
	"No less than 17 out of the 20 AMs"
	—Assembly Members—
	"elected from lists were candidates who lost constituency contests. In Clwyd West there were 5 constituency candidates, but 3 of the 4 who were defeated ended up as AMs".
	It said:
	"There is also concern that list members can 'cherry pick' issues, deciding to focus their activities on those issues most likely to raise their profile or create problems for their constituency opponents . . . list members have concentrated their energies in constituencies in their regions where there are future prospects of winning constituency seats."
	That is the reason—and I remind the hon. Gentleman that the leader of the Liberal Democrats in the Assembly secured only 14 per cent. of the vote when he stood in Torfaen, but was elected through the list anyway. That is not a defensible system.
	I do not favour more Assembly members. Nor, indeed, does the First Minister. However, I will listen carefully to any proposals that may be presented. May I take the hon. Gentleman's question to mean that he wants more politicians in the Assembly?

Lembit �pik: I thank the Secretary of State for giving me early sight of the White Paper. I am pleased that, following its publication, we can have a serious and informed debate about the extent of the Assembly's powers months in advance. May I also say that we greatly support the statutory division of responsibilities between Welsh Assembly Ministers and the National Assembly for Wales? Does the Secretary of State agree that that is both sensible and overdue because it makes it easier to hold the Welsh Assembly Government to account, instead of always blaming the Assembly as a whole for errors of government? We know, for example, that student fees are supported only by Labour and opposed by the rest of the Assembly. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is important for the public to see that sort of transparency?
	Will the Secretary of State clarify the timetable? He said that no significant changes that would require a referendum were likely before 2011, but it was not clear whether he really meant 2011 or 2015 as the earliest time at which a referendum could be held. In either case, why is he so reluctant to accept the recommendation of the Richard commission that such a referendum could happen sooner?
	The issue of the triggers for the referenduma two-thirds majority from the Welsh Assembly and, I assume, a majority from both Houses of Parliamentis also worrying. Why is the Secretary of State placing so many barriers between where we are now and where we should be in the future, particularly when the Scottish Parliament secured all the powers that it sought on the basis of a single referendum? Does he not see that by placing so many barriers between now and the future, it looks as though he is trying to make significant reform impossible? Given that he has not discussed the case for tax-varying powers anywhere in the White Paper, why does he believe that we require a referendum in any case?
	On the issue of the splitting of constituency and list candidatures, can he not see that it looks to other parties as if he is seeking to arrange matters in a way that favours his own party and potentially disadvantages others? What business is it of the Secretary of State for Wales to impose restrictions that mean that other partiesand, indeed, his owncannot choose the people that they want to stand for both the list and the constituency candidatures? Given his transformation on the road to Damascus on the issue of democracy, does he agree with the rest of the country that securing 36 per cent. of the poll certainly does not give his party the authorisation to govern the country as a whole? Can he give me an assurance that he will look further into the wider issue of electoral reform across the country?
	On the veto, the Secretary of State seems to have included, under paragraph 3.16, the power to block aspects of devolution that he does not like. Does that not amount to centralised control by the back door? If I have misunderstood the implications, will he clarify precisely what he means to achieve through paragraph 3.16? Will he also ensure that consultation will take place not only across Wales, but across the border, as neighbouring constituencies in England will also be significantly affected?
	Finally, will the Secretary of State accept that those who are genuinely in favour of the Welsh Assembly having significantly greater powers regard the White Paper, far from giving a green light to devolution, as something of a white flag to the devolution sceptics? It seems to me that the Liberal Democrats, the official parliamentary opposition in Wales, will have to build new alliances with individuals from all parties and from none who want to give the Welsh Assembly the powers that it needs to provide Wales with the services that it deserves.

Lembit �pik: I am interested by the Foreign Secretary's assurance that the Government would ensure that nations and regions would get compensatory investment to replace the European money that they stand to lose. What would be the benchmark with which the Government would judge whether the same amount would be given? For example, would that be objective 1 funding in 1999, or 2003? I ask because it is crucially important, especially for rural and deprived areas in Britain, to know what we will need to compare that investment with.

Ian Paisley: The Foreign Secretary will no doubt be aware that an announcement was recently made to the farmers that the CAP had been secured after a mid-term review. Is he suggesting that the process will be reopened and that the farmers will not know their future, bearing it in mind that agriculture is the mainstay of our economy in Northern Ireland?

Jack Straw: What we want to do immediately is to get fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy back on the agenda. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman and many other hon. Members on both sides of the House have farmers in their constituencies. Although Blackburn may appear to be an entirely urban area, the constituency contains dairy and hill farmers. Half the area is agricultural land, not urban land. Notwithstanding those interests and the concern of the agricultural community, under the Commission's proposals, the CAP, which takes up 40 per cent. of total EU spending, will be 1,000 billion a year, but it assists only 5 per cent. of Europe's populations and distorts that assistance towards the better-off countries. Everyone knows that that cannot go on. Nor can the situation continue in which we spend at least 2 a day for every cow in the EU.
	We have to deal with those issues sensibly. We want reform of the CAP back on the agenda. As I explained to the leader of the Democratic Unionist party, the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), that is in no sense inconsistent with what was agreed in Brussels in October 2002.

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend has made a helpful point and I thank him for it. The Conservative party, too, needs a period of reflection[Interruption.] It needs a period of even longer reflection on its approach to the EU and I hope that wiser counsel will prevail.
	Apart from the obvious decisions of the referendums in France and the Netherlands to say no to the constitutional treaty, the ballots raised wider issues about how the European Union can be made more relevant to people's lives. It was striking that in both France and the Netherlands, exit polls showed that a majority of older voters had supported the constitutional treaty, while younger voters in the main were opposed. That suggests that those who lived through the destruction caused on the continent by the second world war were more acutely aware than younger generations of how much the European Union had done to cement peace and stability.
	In the UK, the situation is reversed: polls show that younger people tend to be more favourable towards the EU, in part perhaps a reflection of our relative economic success in recent years and of Europe's contribution to that. Yet the lesson from those two patterns of opinion is the same: if the European Union is to remain relevant to Europe's future generations, it cannot simply rely on the achievements of the past, but must continue to deliver practical benefits in the future. It must show that Europe can adapt and bring results on the issues that most matter to people's livesjobs, prosperity, crime and personal security. Indeed. the EU has not only to deliver on those issues, but to show that it is delivering; to build a closer dialogue with Europe's citizens and to demonstrate how it is relevant to their lives.
	Those challenges do not exist in a vacuum: we face them in the context of rapid change in the world outside Europe's borders. On current trends, people in the United States will be 50 per cent. richer than those in the EU by 2025. China's industrial production is growing at 17 per cent. a year, and its share of our imports increased tenfold between 1985 and 2003. India is producing 250,000 science and IT graduates every year, and is competing with European economies not just at the lower end of the market but in every sector, including cutting-edge industries such as software and biotechnology.
	To maintain prosperity and social justice in a more competitive and fast-changing world, the EU has to adapt. A European economy in which 19 million people are unemployed is not by any standards delivering a social Europe, so we need to look at how diverse social models, from Scandinavia to Spain to the UK, have delivered growth and social justice in Europe, and discuss how we can sustain and build on those successes in this new context.
	We have to do much more to make a reality of the ambitious targets for economic reform, training and employment in the European Union that were set by its leaders at the Lisbon summit in March 2000, which we in the UK, but not many others, have achieved. EU regulation needs to be reviewed to ensure that it benefits business, and does not harm it. Furthermore, we must strengthen the EU's ability to act globally against threats to our security, while building on its strength as a force for good in international areas such as trade and aid.
	The debate on the EU's future direction also needs to consider how the organisation itself operates. One of the issues discussed in the House when I made my statement nine days ago was how we could ensure that the Commission and the Council, if they so wished, could move ahead with proposals in a protocol to the draft constitutional treaty to give national Parliaments a more direct say in draft laws. I believe that should be so, and I hope that the Houseit is not a matter for the Government, it is entirely for the Housewill make rapid progress on the recommendations of the Modernisation Committee on improving not only the scrutiny of European legislation but also the depth and breadth of debates on issues that arise in the EU.

Jack Straw: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman so I give way to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley).

Angus Robertson: I support the scrutiny and openness embraced by the Foreign Secretary, but does he not agree that a great first step by the House would be for the European Scrutiny Committee to meet in public, not in secret?

Jack Straw: It never is, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	In seeking reform within the EU we must recognise the benefits of the Union and the importance of the United Kingdom's engagement within it. When we have engaged, the UK has shaped to our benefit the rules that allow British citizens to travel, work and live freely anywhere in Europe, and to receive welfare benefits, health care and fair legal protection while they are there. We have secured European liberalisation, which has slashed air fares and brought the cost of telephone calls down by half. UK and other European businesses once had to fill in 60 million customs forms a year simply to trade with Europe, with all the attendant bureaucracy and delay. Today, however, they can trade directly to the same standards and rules as local firms in a market of over 450 million consumers. EU police and justice co-operation is bringing drug-smugglers, people traffickers and fraudsters to book. Alongside those practical benefits, our position as a leading power in Europe makes the UK stronger and more influential in the world, as we can speak as part of an organisation that accounts for a quarter of world wealth and trade, and more than half of all development aid.
	It is obvious to everyone that this European Council marks the start of a difficult period of discussion about the European Union's future direction and priorities, but it also offers the chance for a serious, democratic and vital debate. The United Kingdom has a clear interest in shaping that debate and in leading reform in Europe. Under this Government, we shall play that role to the full.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker has placed a 15-minute limit on speeches by Back Benchers, which comes into operation now. I appeal to hon. Members to keep within that time by some margin if they can, because there is a long list of speakers who are trying to catch my eye.

Jimmy Hood: I welcome the opportunity to take part in today's debate. I also welcome the new Minister for Europe to his post, which, I am sure, will be one step in his further promotion in the Government. However, I remind him that he is the eighth or ninthI have lost countMinister for Europe since 1997. Some of those Ministers for Europe went up and some of them went down, but, subject to his not receiving too many compliments from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson), I am sure that he will ascend further.
	In my brief contribution, I will support the EU, the Government and, in particular, the position that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have taken over the past few weeks. In doing so, I seek to make common cause with other hon. Members on the need for better, more transparent scrutiny of all matters European by this Parliament.
	I never thought that I would say this, but I pay tribute to President Chirac, who has done a momentous job in assisting our policy on European matters by irritating the Foreign Secretary. When I bumped into the Foreign Secretary in the Tea Room last night, I said that I like him more when he is angry. He replied that he is not angry or irritated, but forceful and responsive. Whether he was forceful, responsive, irritated or angry, however, I would welcome more of it in the future.
	I wish to comment on how I would prefer Parliament to proceed from where we are to where I think that the EU needs to be. The treaty may be as dead as the proverbial dodo, but we need to have processes in the EU that make decision making more transparent and closer to the people. As we have heard today, there were proposals in the draft treaty that did not need treaty changesfor example, the subsidiarity early warning system and the requirement on the Council of Ministers to legislate in public. Since I came into the House this afternoon, I am sure that I heard the Leader of the Opposition support that, and I believe that the shadow Foreign Secretary was supportive as well. I got the impression that he was even supportive of qualified majority voting, which was a boost for those of us who support such progressive changes.
	The subsidiarity mechanism gives greater formality to something that Parliaments could already dothat is, send reasonable objections to the Commission, which it can then consider in order to do what it thinks is right. That did not need treaty change, but more formality was required, and that was why it was included in the treaty. The Foreign Secretary has stressed that the subsidiarity mechanism ought to go ahead, and I support him in that.
	As for the Council meeting in public when legislating, again, that does not require treaty change, because it was agreed at the 2002 Seville European Council that it could meet in public, and it sometimes does.
	I encourage my right hon. Friend to stand his ground, to stay angry and focused, and to deliver transparency and subsidiarity to national Parliaments.
	If we are serious about encouraging the European Union to look to the futureand I applaud what the Foreign Secretary is seeking to achievelet us understand that the best way to lead in Europe is to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, in our own Parliament first.

Jimmy Hood: I must have left my notes lying in the Tea Room because I intended to cover that later in my speech.
	I have long argued for reform in our own procedures for scrutinising all matters European in this House. I must accept that this Government, more than any other before them, have done more to improve our scrutiny procedures in this House, butthis is a good wee phrase that I have heard beforewe have done a lot but have a lot more to do. One of the first actions of our Government should have been to set up the Select Committees of scrutiny a lot more quickly. That is very important.
	The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) mentioned some statistics. Since the European Scrutiny Committee met on 6 April, before the general election, 150 EU documents have been deposited in Parliament. The UK presidency begins in a couple of weeks' time, yet we do not have a Committee set up so have been unable even to question our Ministers on what they intend to do and what their priorities will be during their presidency. That is something that the European Scrutiny Committee has done on every previous occasion. There are 150 directives that will either need to have the scrutiny reserve removed from them or delay the business in the European Council. That cannot be a good example for the country that is taking over the presidency to set. I want to make a plea that next time our Parliament is dissolved the scrutiny processes must be in firmly in place as soon as we have a new Parliament back.

Menzies Campbell: In a moment. They were not strong enough. Indeed, the hon. Member for Buckingham, who is currently absent, and I agreed on several occasions that more should be done. When we held a similar debate the other daythere is a sense of dj vu about the proceedingsI posited that there should be an annual audit of subsidiarity. There should be a report to the House on the extent to which the principle had been properly applied in Europe. One can take a variety of measures to ensure that Brussels does only what it has to do for the purposes of the competences that the member states of the European Union have conferred on it.
	Another advantage of the constitutional treaty was that it expressly set out that Brussels had only those competences that were conferred upon it. That appears in the early part of the treaty. We have lost that if the treaty no longer has any viability.

Menzies Campbell: The hon. Gentleman should contain himself but I shall give way to him now.

Ian Davidson: Give up the British commissioner.

Alasdair McDonnell: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for this my first opportunity to address the House as a Member of Parliament. I have been told that the long-held tradition is that a new MP should praise his predecessor, and I realise that this may be more difficult for some than for others. For me, it represents a particular challenge. My predecessor, the Reverend Martin Smyth, was MP for Belfast, South for some 23 yearssince 1982. Given that Martin is a former grandmaster of the Orange Lodge and was an outspoken and constant critic of the Good Friday agreement, it would fair to say that he and I operated very much at opposite ends of the Northern Ireland political spectrum in almost every way. He is, however, an honest man and consistent in his views, and the efforts that he put into trying to frustrate the progress of the Good Friday agreement are worthy of note. His attempts to undo the agreement were in no small way instrumental in my victory on 5 May, and for that I am extremely grateful to him. Despite our many differences, I wish him well in his retirement.
	I am pleased to contribute to this afternoon's debate on the future of the EU, and perhaps I will have a greater opportunity to do so on another occasion. Britain's attitude to Europe has long fascinated me, and that fascination remains after some of the events during today's Prime Minister's Question Time. As an Irishman and a member of a political party that fully embraces the ideal of European unity, I have looked at Britain's relationship with Europe with great frustration. It depresses me that a nation of many millions more people and with much greater financial power than most could not learn from the experiences of a simple country such as Ireland, whose financial power and political clout is much less, but which has benefited greatly from the social, political and economic opportunities offered by the EU.
	For me, having listened to today's discussions, there is too much talk about putting Britain at the heart of Europe, and then facing the other way and starting to walk. At times in my despair, I am reminded of the apocryphal newspaper heading from early in the previous century, which stated, Fog in channelcontinent isolated. Given certain comments made in the House today, it is clear that some still consider the continent isolated. That remains one of the most depressing attitudes that we can experience in modern political life.
	However, it is perhaps more depressing to consider what is happening to Northern Ireland in terms of attitudes to Europe. Despite unprecedented levels of EU investment in our region, totalling more than 3 billion, Northern Ireland returned three anti-European MEPs last June. That the EU remains one of our strongest supporters of the peace process and the move towards stability in Northern Ireland was established beyond doubt only one week ago, when, despite last June's verdict, the European Commission announced a further 97 million of Peace II funding. We in the Social Democratic and Labour party, along with my colleagues in this House, recognise and welcome that support, and we remain equally strong in our commitment to Europe.
	In a maiden speech, it would be remiss of me not to mention some of my local interests. Although I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this august Chamber and to contribute to today's debate, the truth is that I would much prefer to be back on the ground in Belfast, working in the local devolved Assembly to bring peace and to strengthen the peace process that has been working there. I would prefer to be in Belfast, delivering real change for my constituents and making the Good Friday agreement work, but it is here that I must be, because of the intransigence, cynicism, lack of imagination and insecurities of other political movements in Northern Ireland. Because of the absolute absence of any democratic accountability in Northern Ireland, it is here that I must be. Because the Government have shirked from their commitments under the Good Friday agreement and have at times chosen the way of shady side-deals and secret promises, it is here that I must be.
	I am here without apology as an Irish nationalist. Like many Irish leaders before us down the centuries, my party and I choose to stand here and to fight our corner honestly, and to argue an honourable case. With no other forum in which to hold the Government to account, and no other way to address the many serious issues facing my constituents, we stand up for them and fight for their needs. It saddens me deeply that five out of Northern Ireland's 18 MPs do not have the courage to do the same and to be here to argue their case.
	I stand here and fight for a better deal for my constituents because all the people of Belfast, Southnationalists, Unionists and those of neither persuasiondeserve no less from me. In Belfast, South, I am privileged to serve a constituency that encapsulates much that is good, and which perhaps better than any other illustrates the many and varied issues that are holding Northern Ireland back. It is the home of some of the most successful business and professional people in the country, and it also includes some of the areas of greatest deprivation and social need. It contains some of the most fiercely loyalist, and some of the most staunchly provo, districts in Northern Ireland.
	Some of my constituents have enjoyed the benefits of relative economic success, while many more live under the yoke of paramilitary crime syndicates and are brutalised daily by gangs of one hue or another. The malaise that hangs over much of Belfast, South is the same one that hangs over Northern Ireland. It is a malaise born of economic stagnation, cynicism about our politicians and a general disillusionment with the breakdowns and the stop-start methods of the peace process. It is a malaise that is exacting a terrible human toll. I give a simple example. A generation of young men has been cut down by one of the highest suicide rates in Europe. In my constituency alone, we can treat only one third of those presenting with mental illness, an issue which we discussed earlier today. The development of mental health services in Northern Ireland has fallen well behind the rest of the UK. This is particularly so in, for example, certain inner-city areas in my constituency that have levels of deprivation and poor social cohesion that are among the highest in Northern Ireland. Inner-city deprivation results in higher mental health needs, but community mental health services in Belfast, South are inadequately developed, and staffed far short of the levels required to meet the range of mental health needs.
	The disillusionment with our political process to which I referred has been encouraged byand, in turn, encouragesparties whose strength comes from fear and division. It is an attitude that has served those parties well, but it serves no one else. As the parties of division have succeeded, our shared public servicesthe bread-and-butter issues that reflect the needs of our ordinary peoplehave failed. Be it the health service, schools, the infrastructure or the economy, we are seeing the direct and devastating effects of political failure. While the extreme loyalists and provos play their political games, everybody else suffers.
	It might not be entirely clear to the House what a failure direct rule can be for us at times, but I would like to give two simple examples of what happens when accountability slips and is removedexamples that should be close to the heart of this Government. In Northern Ireland we have good schools and excellent teachers who are struggling to educate a new generation of our children to practise reconciliation, to build a future, to break the cycle of underachievement, resentment and violence, and to dare, perhaps, to hope for a better future. I am aware that the Government were once elected on a platform of education, education, education, but I regret that in Northern Ireland our education budget has been cut.
	At times we hear of difficulties across Britain, and criticism of the Government that I often do not accept: I support the Government and most of what they do, and I do not like some of the allegations that are made. Let me, however, give a second example. Our region struggles with planning policy perhaps more than any other. We have a city, Belfast, that needs a co-ordinated urban regeneration policy. Perhaps I could refer briefly to what Sherlock Holmes might historically have described as the Sprucefield John Lewis case. Developers sought permission for a massive 500,000 sq ft development 11 miles from the city. I was satisfied that it would never go throughthat the application would be thrown outas was the chief executive of our planning service. Unfortunately, our new local environment Minister had other plans. Barely a fortnight into the job he called a press conference and announced that the project would go ahead, devastating the heart of the city and Belfast, South in particular. My constituents are bewildered, to say the least.
	Various factors have combined to bring the SDLP to this point. I have already mentioned the parties of division, but I am sad to say that at times another factor has been the attitude of Government. Last year, Government decided to sideline the SDLP in negotiations. Much time and energy was devoted to the parties of division. By sidelining the SDLP, Government sidelined the party of inclusivity and pluralism. It was never going to work, and when it failed the SDLP was expected to throw out the Good Friday agreement and cobble together a shady deal. We are not interested in a shady deal. We believe that there is a future in Northern Ireland. That is what we are working for here, and that is what we are prepared to fight for here.
	We in the SDLP have shown, I think, that we will not be ignored. We stand up to militant thugs on the ground at home, and we will stand up politically everywhere else for what we believe in. For centuries Irish Members of Parliament have been returned to this House to make a case for justice, equality and peace in Ireland. The SDLP is proud to have three Members here, and to continue that honourable tradition.
	Our party has played a major role in bringing the region to where it is today, bringing about the peace process, and bringing about the stabilityor relative stabilitythat has been created. We stand closer today to achieving the goals that have been sought for centuries, the goals of justice, equality and peace, than at any other time in our history. I must warn the House, however, that Northern Ireland stands on the verge of something much less positive.
	My colleague and great friend, the former Member of Parliament Seamus Mallon, has talked of the balkanisation of Northern Ireland. That is a nightmare for all of us. If the parties of division have their way, we will all live in single-community ghettos. I assure the House that the SDLP will stand up to those who would seek to establish such an apartheid society.
	When we began our struggle 35 years ago, marching for civil rightsit continued until the time of the Good Friday agreement, as we sought justice, equality and fairnesswe wanted to create a pluralist, tolerant society where every child would be cherished equally and our towns and cities would be shared places welcoming all. In that struggle, we will continue to fight for justice on behalf of families such as the family of Pat Finucane. We will continue to stand beside families such as the McCartney sisters as they resist mob rule and thuggery, and provide an example for all of us of decency, a high profile and courage.
	Belfast, South reflects many of the problems of modern society in Northern Ireland, but it is a constituency from which I believe we can all draw some hope. It is one of the very few areas left in Northern Ireland where people from both main traditions can live genuinely in mixed communities and work together. It is a constituency where, despite some high-profile setbacks, we are welcoming in new immigrants from diverse ethnic backgrounds across the globefrom eastern Europe, Africa and Asia. I look forward to working every day during this Parliament to encourage all that is good in my constituency, and to shine a light on that which might be rotten. I will stand up as best I can to those who would divide, instil a fear or hold back our potential.
	Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for enabling me to make my first speech to this august Chamber.

Mike Gapes: It is a real pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the former leader of the Conservative party. I recall that in the run-up to the 2001 election he said that he thought that it should be a referendum on our position in Europe. It is a pity that my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench did not take him up on that.
	As a result of the votes in France and the Netherlands, we face a serious crisis in the European Union and there is no getting away from that. The European Union is a magnet not only for economic progress and prosperity, but for democracy and uniting the peoples of the former Soviet Union and of countries that were occupied as a result of the Yalta agreement in a common European home. Those countries now act as a beacon to neighbours further to the south and east, and it would be a disaster if that process were put into reverseif enlargement were put on hold or we returned to the squabbles and conflicts that made Europe an area of war for much of the first 50 years of the last century.
	It was claimed earlier by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) that it would be inconceivable to have a war in Europe now. People have very short memories. In the Balkans, we still have the potential for conflict and war. If the situation in Kosovo went wrong, the consequences could spill over into neighbours throughout the Balkans. We still have an unresolved historic territorial anomaly in Kaliningrad and we do not yet know how it will be resolved. If the process of Europeanisation does not continue in Turkey, who knows what might happen in 20 or 30 years? There are still issues relating to the break-up of the Ottoman empire and Turkey's relationship with Greece.
	It is all very well to assume that because there has been peace for most of us in the continent since 1945 and because there have been fantastic positive changes in central and eastern Europe since 9 November 1989, it will somehow go on for ever. There are still significant minorities in countries that are now members of the European Union of a Russian ethnic background. Such issues have been dealt with calmly so far, and due to the enlargement of the European Union and the fact that we send out signals to the east that there is hope for people in the countries of the former Soviet Union, we have been able to provide the possibility of a peaceful transformation out of the ashes of the former Yugoslavia and the former Soviet Union. However, it would be ridiculous and dangerous to assume that if we get a renewal of nationalism and a breakdown of the European institutions, it still somehow means that Europe will be a continent of peace for all time.

Mike Gapes: My hon. Friend is right. Turf wars between NATO and the EU do not help anyone. In general, we have avoided such situations, but there is still the potential for them. Some people want to drive the Americans out of our security structure and build an alternative, which is completely unrealistic. Others, who live in the past, believe that we should do nothing unless the United States is in the lead. Neither position is correct. We need to build on what the Government agreed with the French at St. Malo in 1998, so that, incrementally, we can develop effective capabilities for the EU to act when NATO is not engaged. We should call on NATO assets for assistance when the United States itself does not want to participate.
	We are doing that slowly and incrementally, but we need to get away from the rhetoric, especially some of the Gaullist rhetorica belief in Europe's capability that is not matched in reality by the contributions of the member states. Only the UK and France have forces who could seriously make such a contribution, and until the German Government take seriously their national defence responsibilities and reform their defence structures to move away from the cold war legacy of territorial defences, we shall never, either in western Europe or the EU, have a serious defence capability.
	To be fair, the Germans have moved to some extent. They are part of ISAFthe international security assistance force in Afghanistanwhere they are playing a positive and leading role. Nevertheless, there is great resistance in Germany, especially on the left, and I hope that German politicians will give the issue further consideration over coming months.
	My final point is that we must recognise that what the EU does and says internationally matters. It is important that we ensure that the Doha round succeeds and that the meeting in Hong Kong later this year is successful. We in the EU have a responsibility both through our approach to the third world and the developing world and in our relationship with the group of 22 countries in the negotiations, led by Brazil, India and China. If we are not flexible, there could be no agreement. Similarly, the Americans must move. Their Farm Bill and their attitudes towards some of the farm issues are as bad as the CAP that we criticise.
	Together, in western Europe and in Europe as a whole, we can, with the enlarged EU, have a significant voice in those international negotiations. If we revert to narrow nationalism, spending all our time squabbling and fighting, trying to rerun the battles of Agincourt or anywhere else, we shall fail. Failure will not be forgiven by future generationseither in our continent or the rest of the world.

Andrew Pelling: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make my maiden speech.
	It is a great privilege to follow the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) with all his expertise on European matters. I shall stick more carefully to the parameters of a maiden speech. One of my illustrious predecessors, the former Speaker Jack Weatherill, once said:
	A good speech will not be remembered; a bad speech will not be forgottenor forgiven.
	I hope that the speech that I deliver this afternoon will be speedily forgotten.
	Certainly, one thing that I do not forget is just how conscientious Jack Weatherill was as a Member of Parliament. I remember being summoned to the Speaker's House when I was chairman of the education committee in Croydon, to negotiate with people who were unhappy about a new city technology college that was to be introduced in the London borough of Croydon. It was certainly Jack's style to bring people together, and he was most conscientious in pursuing constituents' concerns and always writing back, in green ink, with a personal note. That is the style of constituency Member to which I would like to aspire.
	I am sure, however, that I have made more mistakes in the House in a few weeks than Jack ever would have made. The conviviality and friendliness of the House, however, ensures that such mistakes are easily forgiven. As a new Member of Parliament, I have been most impressed that the House's supposed reputation for not welcoming new Members is entirely untrue.
	The way in which Officers of the House have inducted new Members has impressed me a great deal. I learned that it is important to be careful about where one goes and what one says. During one of the induction procedures in which we were shown around the House, and shown how Members put marks on the back of their seats in the Chamber to reserve a seat at Prayers, I made the mistake of referring to Germans and towels. Unfortunately, another Member's partner happened to say, in a Germanic accent, What is this about Germans and towels?
	It will also disturb the Whips Office to hear that I found myself sitting in a hot desk area reserved for Labour Members. Only when I heard a large number of Scottish accents, and reflected that there were probably not many Conservative Members elected to the House who had Scottish accents, did I realise that I was in a Labour party room.
	Before I talk about Croydon, I would like to refer to my predecessor, Geraint Davies, who was both a diligent local councillor and Member of Parliament for Croydon, Central. He took a particular interest in the provision of healthy food for school children and the damage to our local environment, including the loss of many birds, which is an important issue in our locality. Obviously, I am delighted to be elected to the House, albeit with a majority of only 75 votes. I am sure, however, that that is mirrored by the disquiet and upset that Geraint must face, having lost by only 75 votes. I wish him the very best in his future career, and no doubt he will return to the Housenot at my expense, I hope. Croydon has a history of close election results. John Moore had a majority of 164 votes, and the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), back in 1966, had a majority in Croydon, South of just 81 votes.
	It is a great privilege to represent the town in which one was raised and educated. I am a councillor of 23 years' standing in Croydon, and know very well how important the expansion of the European Union is to Croydon in terms of the businesses pursued. Businesses have been particularly keen to look for opportunities in the Czech republic and Poland, and Croydon already has a substantial Polish community. It is important that Europe is a free trading community, with Nestl having its headquarters in Croydon.
	It is also important that Croydon as a town has looked out to other European cities that are at the edge of metropolitan communitiesso-called edge citiesto try to share experiences. Towns such as Croydon, which have seen significant changes, not necessarily to our advantage, in our social, demographic make-up, face many challenges in terms of serving the needs of our community.
	Also with a European theme, it is fair to say that we welcome to our town many eastern Europeans from beyond European Union borders. I was very pleased when I attended a recent Turkish-Kurdish event to find many from those communities, when they welcomed me to speak, chanting, Croydon! Croydon!. No one had ever chanted Croydon! Croydon! like that before, but it is a sign of how migrants to Croydon have identified very quickly and positively with that community. It is important, I feel, to reach out to all communities, and I am so pleased that the al-Khair school, which is based in Croydon, Central, has also been successful. A real example of a great success from Croydon and a way that one can prove it is important to welcome migrants to our shores is the story of Katie Melua, who came from Georgia and was educated in Croydon at the BRIT school.
	There are many businesses28,000 in allin Croydon, which reach out across Europe and seek to export their services and products, but what is important to them is how we can reach and transport ourselves around a congested town. Thus, it is very good news that Croydon is likely to be connected to the London underground's East London line and possible that the successful Croydon tram link will be extended to Crystal Palace. Also, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway), a bypass is being built around Coulsdon. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for supporting the home team by being here with me this afternoon.
	Croydon is also an important retail centre. Indeed, its retail centre dates back to the Surrey street market founded in the 13th century, although people can shop until they drop at many other places, such as the Whitgift centre, the Drummond centre and the new Centrale centre. But Croydon is not just retail heaven. Indeed, we compete with other important centres when it comes to culture. The creation of the Croydon Film Commissionwhich competes with Prague for sites for films and, in particular, advertsis important because we can provide not only 1960s brutalist chic through our skyscrapers, but many attractive heritage items and open spaces.
	Croydon's name comes from a Saxon word meaning saffron valley or, perhaps less flatteringly, crooked valley. One of our many open spaces was promoted by James I in terms of starting racing in Croydon in the Ashburton area, but unfortunately the Croydon racecourse was closed in the late 19th century by a mayor of Croydon because of all the undesirables who came to it. I guess the modern equivalent is the many undesirables who frequent the centre of Croydon while using our night-time economy.
	Another open space in Croydon was Fairfield, which is now the site of the important Fairfield halls. Many people have been there to see many good performers, but a particularly important musician who is an export of Croydon is David Bowie. We have other important exports, such as David Prowse, who played Darth Vader in Star Wars, and Derren Brown, the famous mind-reading TV star.
	I doubt very much, Madam Deputy Leader, whetherI am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. My local government background has leaked out. I doubt very much whether I will be able to display such persuasive, mind-reading skills in the House, but I very much hope that I will be persuasive to some extent on behalf of my constituents in Croydon and put Croydon first.

David Drew: It is a pleasure to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling). I am not sure that he has persuaded me to go on a weekend break to Croydon instead of Prague, but he has done a good job in persuading me that it is at least worth thinking about. His predecessors have clearly served the constituency with some distinction, and it is good to see Jack Weatherill in the other place.
	It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I had hoped to speak in last week's earlier incarnation of it, but I was at least able to hear the speeches of the various Front Benchers, so I had some forewarning of what we were likely to hear today. Interestingly, in his opening remarks during that debate, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) came as close as any Conservative Member has yet come to saying that if the Single European Act were debated today, the Conservatives would be much warier of enshrining it in statute. From my perspective, that is a jolly good movealbeit not far enoughin the right direction. If we get an apology for Maastricht as well, we can begin to think much harder about the Europe that some of us on the Labour Benches would like to see.
	There are those who are still disposed to believe that there is yet some hope in the Euro project, but for some of us the reality is that the European constitution is deadnot long live the constitution! When I intervened on the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), I managed to elicit the fact that the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) might not be quite so lonely in future, if early-day motion 318 is to be taken at face value. It is good to see some Eurosceptics in all parts of this House, and not just on the Labour and Conservative Benches.
	So a seismic shift has taken place in the past fortnight, and anyone who pretends otherwise is being optimistic, na-ve or oblivious to the reality of what is happening. That shift may have been led by the French and the Dutch, but it is the people of the whole of Europe who have spoken. They have completely ripped up the Euro project, and they want a very different sort of Europe to be taken forward. The reasons for that can be interpreted in many different ways, but I like to think that my favourite economist, Anatole Kaletsky, put his finger on it in a series of articles in which, in simple terms, he took the view that, It's the euro, stupid, what done it. Trying to force together all the various currencies has created great resentment among the peoples of Europe. In his article of 9 June, he drew parallels between the no votes in France and Holland and our own, in a sense voluntary expulsion from the exchange rate mechanism in the early 1990s. Perhaps those votes will prove to have the same value.
	I make no apology for saying that in my view, the days of the euro are numbered. Not only will nation states not want to join the eurozone, which we have wisely decided to stay outside; it will collapse from within because of the completely daft policies that have been introduced on the basis that such a currency union can be achieved. The reality, however, is that it will not work.
	The growth and stability pact is what is really doing the damage. At the very time when we need to grow the economies of Europe to deal with increasing worries about employment and all that comes on the back of that, we have a pact that insists on the opposite. That is why countries such as Germany, France and indeed Italy are either trying to cheat on the pact and gain more economic freedom and flexibility or, more particularly, are trying to live in denial and pretend that they can get away with it regardless.
	We are not talking just about economics in the pure sense, though. This is not just about some economists playing with various theories; it is about the direction in which the European project was going. Worryingly, we have learnt nothing from the destruction of manufacturing on the mainland of Europe, followed, I dare say, by our destruction of it here. Under the Bolkestein directive, we have been moving towards the disruption of public services as well in the mad pursuit of even more privatisation. We must wonder whether we have learnt anything from what has been going on. If we followed the same route as the rest of Europe, we would have even more unemployment and a further detachment and disengagement of the European peoples. We hope there will be an opportunity for us to think again about what is happening. Perhaps countries will start listening to their people, rather than trying to believe that it is the people who are out of touch and what they really want is more and more euro-centralisation.
	I have been playing a game with the Table Office, trying to find out whether it is possible to ask the Treasury whether it has carried out analysis to establish what will happen if the eurozone breaks up. Could the lira be recreated? Perhaps in the interim prices could be quoted in pounds; a stable currency might be more desirable than the euro in its current state, which is causing all sorts of problems. I tried to table a question to that effect, but it was not allowed. Sadly, it seems that it is not possible to work on the basis of supposition, although according to Kaletsky and Larry Elliott of The Guardian, the other economist who appears to know what he is talking about, the situation is becoming daily more realistic and less a matter of pure speculation.
	It is not just a question of economics, however. It is also about what else the European project implies. There is a political and social argument that needs to be had. Sadly, because of the various defeats faced by my party during the 1980s and 1990s, we were somewhat seduced by the views of Jacques Delors 17 years ago, when he made a memorable speech to the Trades Union Congress. Much of what he said was laudable; the problem was that people saw all the answers in terms of ratcheting us even further towardslinking us even more directly toeverything European. There were good things that we could take from the EU, but there were also bad things that we should avoid.

David Drew: My hon. Friend has obviously read my speech, which is not surprising because we come from the same school of thought. That is exactly it. We thought that we were getting, dare I say, a social Europe. Some of us were even persuaded that we were getting a socialist Europe. Of course, we were getting anything but that: we were getting a neo-liberal Europe, and we continued to move in that direction until the countriesrightly, in terms of their populationsbegan to smell a rat, and began to reject it out of hand.
	These arguments have been debated and will continue to be debated. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) rightly said, the trade unions are now beginning to realign themselves, with union after union moving gradually, if not from a sycophantic position on Europe, through a more sceptical position towards one of almost downright hostility. I welcome that; we need to have that debate.
	I am not arguing the case for busting up the EU; we need to change it. We need to change our thinking on the EU and advance new ideas. A political and social argument needs to be conducted on the left, as well as, dare I say it, on the right. It seems that the right have got their position together. It could be argued that they went through a dark period during which they were too friendly towards the centralising tendencies of the EU, but they now appear to be clearer in their perspective than some on the left. The left will, I hope, respond in due course. If not, they risk being completely out of touch with their own people.
	I welcome the fact that the constitution is dead. I welcome the fact that there will have to be a clear realignment of thinking on the left, as well as on the right, and I like to think that some of issues that we have debated today are relevant to it. I am not going to go over the same ground in detail, but in this day and age, I cannot understand how anyone who believes in justice in the wider world could support the common agricultural policy. Irrespective of its impact on producers and consumers here, that policy is bereft of any moral justification in respect of its impact on the less developed world. We have to put our hands up about that. We need to understand that some producersnot only in this country, but in France and Germany where the CAP has been part of a protectionist rumpface tougher times ahead. I do not want further neo-liberalism, but the re-establishment of local food chains through which producers can have greater say over what consumers really want. That can now begin to happen.

Roger Williams: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the mid-term review of the common agricultural policy has done much to take incentives away from production, thereby improving the position of third-world producers?

Malcolm Bruce: I shall speak only briefly about the EU and then about the wider Europe. This is after all a debate on European affairs and so far I think that only the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) has made much acknowledgement of the 22 countries that are not members of the EU.
	In the wake of the constitution, it is certainly appropriate that we should have a rethink, even a reinvention, of the EU, but some Members appear to think that that is an opportunity to unravel the EU, to bring everything back home, with merely a loose treaty arrangement. If we were to do that, we should throw away the huge amount that has been achieved over the years, which we take for granted and would realise that we had lost only after it had gone. After all, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) pointed out, the fact that countries have queued up to join the European Union is proof of huge success. In spite of the difficulties over the working arrangements that that change has brought about, no one is suggesting that they should leave or that another arrangement should be adopted. I remember standing outside the Polish embassy and talking about the support for Solidarity and the case for Polish democracy. Some people have short memories, as they now complain about the fact that, almost by accident, the Poles belong to a free and democratic country, with the freedom to come and work here and with their own place in a democratic common market that we helped to create. We should not deplore that but welcome it. We should not throw that achievement out just because we find it difficult to work out the decision making.
	The hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) spoke about all the things that we could do nationally. If, for example, we decided to tackle aid or structural funds on a national basis, that would only work with international agreement. In other words, every member would need to agree the framework for such work. That could be an acceptable way of delivering moneys instead of delivering them through the European Commission. We still need a mechanism, however, for making agreements and, if I may say so, we would probably find that qualified majority voting was the best way to achieve efficient decision making.
	There is no doubt at all in my mind that Jacques Chirac has raised the issue of the budget to distract attention from his own miserable and comprehensive failure to lead the people of France anywhere useful. We should not make assumptions about the reasons why people voted the way they did. We must simply accept that they did so for various reasons. Surprisingly, one Frenchman in Paris told me this week that he had voted no because he thought that France was too dominant in Europe. He wanted a renegotiation of the constitution to give more power to the smaller countries. We should therefore not presume that we know why the French voted as they did, but we must live with the consequences of their vote. In the long term, the CAP must be reformed. A perfectly reasonable British position would be, we negotiated a rebate, so if it is to be renegotiated, the whole budget, of which the CAP constitutes the lion's share, must be renegotiated. There is common agreement that that is a proper and legitimate argument, although there is disagreement about strategy and outcomes.
	There are anxieties about structural funds. My local council has sent me a communication expressing its worries about the British position, and whether those funds would be brought back home. In some cases, local authorities have a more constructive and objective arrangement with the European Commission than with the British Government. That is not an argument for the arrangementit is simply a practical reality. Aberdeenshire council operates a number of projects supported by European Union funds which it believes are at risk. Many of those projects tackle the consequences of agricultural and rural decline. A large rural council such as Aberdeenshire requires assistance with such problems, and it has benefited from European structural funds over the past four years to the tune of 8.691 million. The loss of that money would be extremely damaging to the regeneration of our fishing and rural communities. I am not suggesting that the British Government cannot achieve success, but any change is bound to create concern. My council has been able to secure funding for various projects across Aberdeenshire, and would like an assurance that if there is any change, it will have continued access to such funding.
	On the issue of a wider Europe, I speak as a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, of which the United Kingdom is a founder member. Indeed, we were the first country to ratify the European convention on human rights. In the current climate of uncertainty, the European Court of Human Rights and the convention offer a particularly important focus for upholding human rights issues across post-Communist Europe. It is not the only such forum, and I acknowledge that the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, NATO and the European Union in its external relations all have a role to play. There is no doubt that there is an active engagement which the Government should and do support.
	It is therefore particularly regrettable that given our good record on human rights, we have experienced some pretty sharp criticism by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights on a number of pieces of legislation introduced by the Government, to which my own party has vigorously objected. In his report Alvaro Gil-Robles substantially echoed the criticisms that I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues have been makingfor example, of control orders and the Government's proposals on those. The commissioner states:
	It is essential . . . that the necessary judicial guarantees apply to proceedings resulting in their application and that the legislation providing for such exceptional measures be subject to regular parliamentary review.
	Given that we have had a guarantee from the Government that the legislation will be revisited, I hope that the comments of the European commissioner will be taken fully on board, and that the House will continue to have a proper role in oversight of that.
	The commissioner is even more outspoken on the role of evidence that may have been secured through torture, even in other countries. He puts it in pretty direct language:
	torture is torture whoever does it, judicial proceedings are judicial proceedings, whatever their purposethe former can never be admissible in the latter.
	The British Government response to that is inherently mealy-mouthed, unsatisfactory and unacceptable. As an architect of the European convention on human rights and as a country that tries to encourage others to apply high standards of human rights, we should take the report seriously. Criticism to which we do not respond constructively undervalues our ability to lead and influence other countries.
	In my capacity as a member of the parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, I am the rapporteur on political prisoners in Azerbaijan. In one way or another, Azerbaijan has probably experienced 200 years of external oppression and has become an independent state only since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and only after a fairly violent war against the Russians and a subsequent civil war in Azerbaijan, which went remarkably unreported in the British media. The idea that we have had peace in Europe since the second world war is not borne out by many of those small wars that have had devastating consequences for people. There has, in addition, been the war between Azerbaijan and Armenia, leading to the occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh and a million displaced refugees, with whom Azerbaijan has had to deal. Yet we are trying to lead countries like AzerbaijanGeorgia has found its own wayArmenia and others to some kind of democratic future.
	I have two further points to bring to the attention of the House. The first concerns the plight of British citizen Almas Guliyeva, who was arrested in Baku on 3 June. She is a constituent of the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis), who I know has made strenuous representations on her behalf and I am supporting him in that. Mrs. Guliyeva is the niece of a former speaker of the Azerbaijan Parliament currently living in exile in the United States who wishes to be a presidential candidate or a parliamentary candidate. There is no doubt that her arrest is directly connected to that relationship.
	Mrs. Guliyeva is in hospital, having suffered a heart attack as a result of the inquisition that she underwent on her arrest. Today her doctors have authorised the authorities to question hersomething her family are extremely concerned about. The background to the situation is that the authorities claim that they found a gun in her luggage as she was leaving the country. Is it realistic to believe that any international traveller today taking luggage through any international airport and putting it through an X-ray machine would put a gun in their luggage? That does not seem to be a rational or credible piece of behaviour. Indeed, circumstances suggest that the authorities asked for the luggage to be run through a second time, when, mysteriously, the gun was found. We must be aware that this kind of thing is happening and that a British citizen has been subjected to it.
	I also have an e-mail dated 13 June which says:
	On June 12
	last Sunday
	at prime time several TV channels of Azerbaijan . . . exposed to insults Dr. Leyla Yunus, Director of the Institute of Peace and Democracy because of her human rights protecting activities and in particular for the preparation of the lists of political prisoners and for sending them to Mr. Malcolm Bruce the rapporteur of the Parliamentary Assembly.
	It goes on to say that journalists mentioned the exact address at which she and her family were living and called for viewers of the programme to take appropriate action. That is the kind of society that exists in Europe today and in a country that is a member of the European convention on human rights, which we are responsible for trying to enforce. I say with a sense of support that the people of Azerbaijan and countries like it should achieve genuine democracy and we should accept our responsibility for that.
	Important as our internal debates on the future of the European Union are and important as it is that we get the right mechanisms for EU decision making, we should not forget the wider Europe of which we are a part and our responsibility to try to bring pluralism, democracy and human rights to such countries. I plead with the House that when we have a debate on foreign affairs, it is just that, and that when we have a debate on EU affairs, it is regarded as separate. I hope that the Minister for Europe will acknowledge that these are important issues that we need to address.

Nick Hurd: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to make my first speech in this House. In doing so, I am conscious that in their very different ways the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling) have raised the bar to an ambitious height. Although both are no longer in their places, I congratulate them on their contributions to a debate that ought to be addressing one of the great political challenges of our time: how does the European Union reconnect with its people and what role does Britain play in that process? I speak from the delicate position of being both the son of the Foreign Secretary who negotiated the Maastricht treaty and the successor of John Wilkinson, who fought that treaty tooth and nail through the Lobby. It is a genuine pleasure to pay tribute to John, and in so doing I beg the indulgence of more seasoned Members of the House who are waiting to contribute to the debate.
	It would be quite wrong to cast John as an anti-European. He campaigned vigorously for our entry into the Common Market and some of the greatest satisfaction in his parliamentary career came from his work on the Council of Europe. He simply felt that the European project was heading in the wrong direction, and he would enjoy the irony of the fact that the majority of the people in France appear to share his view.
	John has been a very good model for a young politician working out how to earn the respect of the people whom he intends to serve. His commitment to country and public service is deeply rooted. He brought real expertise to this place. Jeremy Hanley, an ex-Defence Minister and now a constituent, observed
	his knowledge of the RAF and its capabilities is probably second to none in the house.
	He was no one's poodle. His fierce independence of mind may have cost him some shallow glory on the Front Benches, but it won him the long-term admiration of his constituents. They simply trusted him to speak his mind. Over 25 years of service, John was a dedicated local champion who helped many people with endless supplies of courtesy, good humour and patience. Every week I meet individuals and groups who lose no time in reminding me of that. I am sure that the House will join me in wishing John and Ceci a very happy retirement.
	I am very proud to have inherited the constituency of Ruislip-Northwood from John Wilkinson. Sitting on the western end of the Central, Piccadilly and Metropolitan lines, it is superbly connected to London but proud to keep a distance. Few constituencies are more regularly visited by the royal family or senior members of the Government, although I should point out that their journeys rarely extend beyond the mile that it takes them to travel from the A40 to RAF Northolt. That famous airbase celebrates this year its 90th anniversary and the proud distinction of being the oldest continually operational RAF station in the country.
	The story of Ruislip-Northwood is one of evolution from sleepy rural hamlets to thriving suburban towns, which are determined to maintain their identity and quality of life. The key agents of change were the railwaymen and the property developers who followed in their wake. The extension of the Metropolitan line opened up rural Middlesex and the opportunity for people to pursue the dream of a better quality of life, more space, better air and a greater sense of security, and those aspirations remain as valid today as they were in the late 19th century. Northwood is separated from Ruislip by magnificent ancient woods that once provided sport for kings. Harefield stands apart, surrounded by precious green belt, and it is proud to be the last village in Middlesex and home to the world-famous Harefield heart hospital.
	My constituency may have played a quiet role in our nation's history, but it is not without its heroes: the Polish war memorial honours those brave Polish fliers based at RAF Northolt who laid down their lives for a free Europe; the genius of Sir Magdi Yacoub attracted the brightest and the best to push the boundaries of medicine at Harefield hospital; and Paul Strickland's vision and drive means that patients at Mount Vernon cancer centre have access to the most sophisticated scanning equipment in the country.
	On the whole, our heroes are low-profile, local people who have stood up for what they value over the years and who have done far more to shape their communities than any politician sitting in Whitehall, let alone Brussels. In the 1930s, Ruislip residents took decisive action in saving their woods from being turned into houses, which meant going to Cambridge and persuading the then bursar of King's college Cambridge, one J Maynard Keynes, to sell the land to them rather than to the developers.
	In 1983, local residents took the drastic step of physically occupying Northwood Pinner hospital for three months until the bureaucrats saw sense and abandoned plans to close it. Today that spirit lives on in organisations such as Heart of Harefield, which has been so effective in exposing the folly of trying to move Harefield hospital to Paddington. The tradition of civic pride is rooted in a strong conviction that the quality of life in Ruislip, Eastcote, Northwood and Harefield is worth fighting for. I strongly share that conviction, and it is my privilege and responsibility to give those communities a strong voice in this place.
	The clearest message that I heard in the general election was one of frustration and lack of confidence in politicians. People feel less able to control what is important to them, and the big decisions seem to be taken by remote, unaccountable bureaucracies. For example, the public consultations on the future of Harefield hospital and Mount Vernon hospital were widely seen as shams conducted by an increasingly arbitrary and remote NHS. Few issues arouse more local passion than planning, not least because local planning departments seem so toothless in the face of central Government directives. People are deeply worried about increased antisocial behaviour and want to see more police on the streets, but their voice appears to have little weight in shaping local police priorities. My concern is that communities that do not feel empowered quickly lose their sense of community.
	You may well ask, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what relevance that point has to the future of the European Union. The EU has begun to symbolise what people feel is wrong with politics: it is too elite; it is too remote; and it is seen as too self-interested and too corrupt. Over the past decade, the British people have recognised the degree to which Europe meddles in their lives, and they want less interference rather than more.
	The current European leadership reminds me of the board of a grand multinational company that has lost contact with its customer base over many years. The decision by the French people has prompted a crisis in the boardroom and a vacuum of leadership. It is time for someone to stand up and make the case that this is the opportunity to save the company, if the board accepts the need for a new strategy.
	Instead of appearing to focus endlessly on its own workings and the allocation of power, the EU must prove its value to a new generation. I argue humbly that it must first explicitly ditch the principle of ever-closer political union and focus instead on re-establishing the EU's credentials as a force for prosperity, growth and jobs. That means winning the argument for the Anglo-Saxon model of economic liberalism, which is the only sustainable response to the new competitive age. That means focusing minds on extending the single market, breaking down external tariffs and strengthening the economic ties that will do more to bind us together than any artificial political structure. It also requires a fundamentally different approach to regulation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) pointed out so powerfully, it asks very awkward questions about the value of monetary union.
	The second priority, I would suggest, is to prove that the EU can deliver an effective lead on some of the issues that we cannot tackle on our own, because that is a large part of what it is for. Take climate change, for example. The science has moved on, and there is an urgent need to look beyond the first, very small step that was Kyoto. It is clear that the world is not going to get a lead from the superpower. In this vacuum, the EU has a chance to play a constructive and possibly decisive role in building a coalition of the willing around a post-Kyoto framework. It can certainly take practical steps to put words into action. If, for example, we have to live with the common agricultural policy, is not there a case for using it to incentivise the production of biofuels? A robust EU emissions trading scheme could be, and must be, a template for a global scheme.
	In short, it is time for the EU to be seen to be taking a lead on the difficult issues that matter to people. It is time for radical reform to replace a culture of power grab with one of delivering tangible benefits to people. In truth, real progress will require new leadership, and in the short term only Britain can supply it until a new generation of leaders takes the stage in France and Germany. While the old regime struggles to respond to the impudence of the French and Dutch people, it is time for Britain to find a bold, positive voice on the EUone that steers the Community towards better defining its role, setting its limits much more clearly and, above all, proving its relevance and value to the people who pay for it.
	If I can compare the nations of Europe to the inhabitants of the 100 acre wood, I would say that Britain has traditionally and usefully played the role of Eeyore, but it is now time to show some of Tigger's bounce in pointing the way forward. In 1999, the Prime Minister threw down this challenge:
	If we believe our destiny is with Europe, then let us leave behind the muddling through . . . the half-heartedness . . . and play our part with confidence and pride.
	If ever there was a time for him to walk his talk, it is now.

David Curry: It is a particular pleasure to follow the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd). He introduced himself as the son of a former distinguished Foreign Secretary. I suppose that he thought that he had better do so before anybody else referred to it. If I may say so, he has no need whatsoever to lean on his genes, as it were, because he has immediately shown that he is eloquent and informative in describing his constituency, generous and indeed accurate in praising the work of his predecessor, John Wilkinson, and intuitive and perceptive in describing the attitude of his constituents towards the European Union.
	I know that it is difficult sitting here waiting for many hours to make a maiden speech. My hon. Friend was third, and by no means the least, and he deserves all our congratulations. He was powerful and articulate in setting out his own view of what Europe should be doing. I am glad that he mentioned the climate change agenda, which no other Member has touched on today. As he said, we are concerned that Europe should do those things which affect the way in which people can live their lives. Climate change is climbing up the agenda rapidly, and nation states are, almost by definition, incapable of responding to it by themselves.
	There has been a lot of visionary talk this afternoon. Coming from much further up the A1 than Ruislip-Northwood, I am going to be rather less visionary and, I hope, a little more practical.
	I wonder to what extent the Government do any competent preparation and planning on European issues at all. Two years ago, they walked into a meeting to find that Chirac and Schrder had stitched together a package on agricultural financing. The Government made the best of a bad job, but the fact is that it was put together in their absence and they have been unable to unstitch it. Now, I get the impression that the Government did no real planning as to what the consequences of a no vote in France or elsewhere might be. Again, it looks as if they have been caught on the hop by a French counter-offensive on the rebate. Perhaps we did not anticipate trouble on that. Perhaps the Chancellor, with his well-known and well-advertised impatience with Europe and all its works, his anxiety to take the last flight to and first flight from Brussels, his reluctance to engage in what the French call les rondes de jambesa necessary part of European negotiations, which goes better with alcohol than withoutand preoccupied with G8 issues, took his eye off the ball.
	A month ago, no one in Government was talking about a fundamental change in the balance of EU funding. During the general election campaign, I did not detect anyone telling me that a fundamental decision to change the orientation of Europe would happen, however much we might have welcomed that. We appear to have stumbled into a demand for a fundamental revision of European finances almost by accident and as a reaction to coming under attack about the rebate.
	We were already at the beginning of a major change in the common agricultural policy. The first transitional period in the move to the single farm payment is this year. There are years to come. It applies differently to different parts of the United Kingdom, but it represents a fundamental change and the other EU countries have timetables in a broadly similar framework. If the Government now say that we will start from scratch and that we need a new reform, the sooner we know about it, the better.
	Do we have any idea of the change that we want? I do not believe that we do. I have heard nothing from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about the future shape of the CAP. I congratulate the Secretary of State on negotiating the single farm payment reforms, which was a significant achievement and a fundamental break with the past of the CAP. However, I have not heard that it is the aperitif before a much bigger change later.
	Are the Government aware that CAP funding will be cut significantly and that that the sword will fall precisely on the most useful partsthe environmental and rural development elements? It is already clear from the management committees that there is serious axing of the very programmes of which the Government made most in arguing that they have introduced a new environmental chapter into agricultural policy.
	The best hope of reforming the CAP is for the British Government to pursue vigorously the World Trade Organisation round and ensure that Europeans do not lapse on their way to the ministerial meetings at the end of the year. The demands of the marketplace and the WTO have always been more effective drivers of change in fundamental policies such as agriculture than self-generated demands. It will take all the skills of the British presidency to ensure that Ministers arrive in Hong Kong in December still determined to strike a deal. It would be a significant win simply to ensure that the farm support of Bulgaria and Romania falls in the envelope that is currently envisaged when they join the EU.
	As I said to my Front Benchers, the stuff about horrible, miserable, inefficient French farmers, ghastly peasants and how we should stop them getting more money is tedious. First, it is inaccurate. The French have some of the most efficient farmers in the world. East Anglia has little to teach the French cereal farmers in the Paris basin and northern France about agricultural productivity. The Dutch, the Danes and other European nations are as efficient as us in other sectors of agriculture. We do not help ourselves by perpetuating some of the little British myths because it means that we sometimes fool ourselves about the genuine needs of our farmers.
	We need to examine the current politics of the EU. I am a well-known Francophile, sometimes to my cost. However, President Chirac is undoubtedly the empty man of European politicsl'homme vide de l'Europe. He brought about his own misery. He has made a series of heroic miscalculations in his political career and the latest is probably the most fatal. That is not our fault. At the moment, he appears almost to want to take revenge on his people, but there is no reason for the United Kingdom to help him. We helped him before the referendum on the services directive and I see no reason for continuing that help.
	It is ironic that, in many ways, the vote in France was to stop the world and get off, whereas some of the most efficient multinational companies in the world, in the insurance, aerospace, nuclear and motor industries, are based in France. Some French companies are world-beaters, so we should not characterise the whole of France as some backward industrial society hiding behind a luddite exterior.
	Chancellor Schrder is going for an early election in September, which we hope profoundly that he will lose, and which I am sure that the Prime Minister also hopes that he will lose. He will be much more comfortable with a Christian Democrat regime than with a Social Democrat regime, since the Prime Minister is much more a Christian Democrat than a Social Democrat. Angela Merkel would be a much more effective partner in sharing a vision of the sort of economic society that she wants in Europe than Chancellor Schrder. I hope that there will be no last-minute electoral dashes to Germany to help the Chancellor, although, on second thoughts, perhaps I would like that, as it will no doubt reinforce the determination of the German people to get rid of him.
	Signor Berlusconi has an election a year from now and is in serious difficulties. His status as the Prime Minister's best friend, which brings such singular delight to the Labour Benches, might not continue for much longer. In Spain, there is a relatively newly elected but unfortunately moralising leader, with whom the Prime Minister has nothing in common. Let us not fool ourselvesChirac-Schrder is not Schmidt-Giscard or Kohl-Mitterrand. It is an old man in a hurry and a middle-aged man in a panic, and both of them might be heading for the exit.
	We do not need to blink on the rebate issue. Europe will need its budget eventually and, if we hang on, a budget will have to be agreed. We should be clear that it is not permanently sustainable, for the reasons that have been explained. It is not reasonable that the new member states should be asked to bear a mounting burden over a long period. If we believe in our own liberalising agenda, and that the geometry of Europe has changed because of enlargement, we look to precisely those states to be our allies in delivering that liberalising agenda. As the Prime Minister has said, albeit belatedly, we need to address not merely the rebate but its causes, to coin a phrase. Perhaps we need a wider mechanism to address legitimate concerns of countries such as the Netherlands, Sweden and Germany, and we need a long-term shift in the balance of European spending. Globalisation and the WTO are likely to be more efficient drivers of that than internally generated forces.
	I hope that the UK presidency will not be a huge brawl, which it could become if we are not careful. We have interests in driving forward a single market agenda in services, working for a successful WTO round and developing the European Union's capacity to deliver soft power, of which enlargement is part, while accepting that, essentially, member states must address their own economic difficulties. We will not do anything at the European level that will solve France's economic problems with the labour market, or stop the German problems, which stem as much from the terms of reunification as the exchange rate of the euro. There is no single Anglo-Saxon model, and no single continental model and nor, we should remember, is the UK always supremely better and different from everybody else in its economic performance. If we are to get the outcomes that we want, we must make sure that we get French and German engagement. We cannot deliver those outcomes in Europe against the French and Germans, so we must try to create that boring old consensus to try to move forward.
	I agree that we must maintain the course for enlargement, which is the European Union's greatest achievementthe creation of a civil society, with a functioning democracy and accountability, through member states from very diverse dictatorial or totalitarian backgrounds having to subscribe to certain civil liberties criteria in order to be part of the European Union. The changes that they bring about to do that are much more fundamental than they would achieve autonomously, as we are seeing in Turkey at the moment. The final prize would be Turkey. The ability to demonstrate that an Islamic society can be part of a much wider association that is predominantly, but far from exclusively Christian, would be an enormous contribution of soft power by the European Union to geopolitical stability.
	Europe faces two huge tasks. The first is that we need to discuss properly how the European Union works in the new world of global investment and trade. Issues such as education, training, research and development, and market-based culture will become much more important, because globalisation will not go away and we cannot close the frontiers again. We will have to deal with that incredibly competitive society, and Europe has a role in ensuring that we can do it.
	Secondly, there is the question of connection with citizens. The problem is that the European Union has lots of institutions, but they do not have the legitimacy with which citizens endow the institutions of member states. In other words, they do not have demos, unlike the institutions of a nation state, which draw directly on the people.
	That means that we need to find mechanisms to draw national bodiesnot just governmental, civil society bodies, but national Parliamentsmuch more closely into the working of the European Union and the decision-making processes, so that people can find in those institutions and bodies geometry with which they are familiar. They will see shapes, functions and procedures with which they are familiar and that they can relate to until we can create a marriage of institutions that are necessarily supranational, but which draw to the maximum on familiarity with institutions in which people have invested a certain trust and faithalthough perhaps not always deservedly, considering the history. None the less, they are what people have chosen. If we can do that, it will be a significant help.
	Finally, I want to make one little point. It would be awfully helpful if Europe could occasionally dismantle something instead of creating it. May I recommend the Economic and Social Committee? The European Parliament is the international democratic body of the European Union, so I cannot for the life of me see what the residual function of the Economic and Social Committee is. I am not a great fan of the Committee of the Regions either. We must be able to say, This has served its purpose, but it has been superseded. Europe can be more efficient and slimmed down. That would give a great lesson to everybody. We talk about devolution: let us do it at home and do it in Europe. Then, perhaps, we will be able to show the citizens that we have listened to them.

Angus Robertson: A confederal Europe resembles the constitution definition, which describes the EU as a union of states that decides to pool sovereignty in various areas, while retaining the principle of subsidiarity. I firmly believe that powers should be handed back. Someone asked what should be handed back, and first on my list would be the common fisheries policy. That has been an absolute disaster, yet no mention has been made of it today.
	I return to what we in this House should be doing about reform. The esteemed Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton, East (Mr. Hood), who spoke at the beginning of the debate, talked about the important role that it plays in ensuring that this House is properly informed about proposals from the European Commission, the Council of Ministers and elsewhere, and about important regulations, directives and communications. Every week, the Committee goes through as many as 30 to 40 documents, some of which are profoundly important. Yet for the past two months, it has not met. There has been no scrutiny whatsoever of European business during this Parliament. Does that mean that the Council of Ministers was not meetingthat it was not deciding whether such regulations and directives should be introduced? Of course not. Such regulations and directives were introduced. What happened to the scrutiny reserve, or has everything been put on hold? I do not know, but if we want to reform the EU we must lead by example. I am sorry to say that we have failed in that regard.
	We also failed in terms of turnout. During the debate on the draft constitution, a Standing Committee that brought together Members of this House and of the other place, had twice to be declared inquorate because Conservative members did not attend. That is extraordinary. We can take European business seriously or choose to grandstand once or twice a year on our hobby-horse subjects. We need to get on with the nitty-gritty work and to take our scrutiny function much more seriously.
	Another issue that has not been touched on is the role of devolved Administrations and institutions. Some 60 to 70 per cent. of the European legislation that gets handed down to the United Kingdom relates to shared sovereignty with the Scottish Parliament, not to this House, yet no mention has been made of how we might choose to improve that situation. Members might not be aware that the relationship between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations is currently secret. Concordats on intergovernmental relationships between the central authority and devolved Administrations say that Ministers should not talk about their discussions on important policy issues. How can we talk about an improved EU when scrutiny Committees do not meet, interrelationships are secret within UK governmental structures and the European Scrutiny Committee itself, on the most important times that it meets, does so in secret. That is indefensible. The Dail Eireann can work out a way to meet in public and go through the various issues, so why cannot the European Scrutiny Committee do the same?
	I am mindful of the time, so I will be brief in discussing my final point. I am concerned that, in the current climate of megaphone, gunboat diplomacy on the rebate, we might be missing out a very important element of the budgetary debate that is of profound importance to UK areas that receive EU funding. I do not know whether, given the large amount of paper in his in-tray, the new Minister for Europe has had a chance to examine what is known as statistical effect. Let me try to explain a rather complicated development.
	Because of enlargement, money needs to go from the older, richer EU states to the poorer, new member states, but 17 regions throughout the old EU are very much at the margins of EU funding, and may lose it. The EU has been considering ways of dealing with that difficulty. One of the affected areas is the highlands and islands, part of which I represent.
	If statistical effect does not operate, there will be an estimated 350 million loss from the next programming period. If that is compounded with the accountancy error on the part of the Office for National Statistics, which has denied the highlands and islands objective 1 fundingit amounts to a loss of between 200 million and 250 millionand the potential loss of cohesion funds, the Scottish economy alone will lose up to 1 billion. That is confirmed by a document drawn up two days ago by the Scottish Executive. When I asked the Foreign Secretary about it, he said that he was not aware of the exact numbers. I should be grateful if the Minister for Europe could confirm that that would be the position. The document says:
	If the UK position was to succeed
	that is, its current negotiating rounds on the budget and how the UK Government would like to proceed
	Scotland would receive no European Structural Funds support.
	It confirms that that would mean a loss of 710 million.
	I noted carefully what the Foreign Secretary said earlier in reply to a question from me. He said that the UK Government had given a commitment to the regions and nations that they would not lose out. I should be grateful if, when summing up or indeed now, the Minister could confirm that the UK Government will coveras a minimumthe nigh on 1 billion that will potentially be lost from the Scottish economy, given the detrimental impact that that would have on the highlands and islands in particular. Can he give that minimum guarantee that the Government will stump up 1 billion of additional funds to close the gap?

Stephen Dorrell: I want to be reasonably brief this evening and concentrate my remarks exclusively on the consequences for Britain of the referendum decisions in France and Holland. Before doing so, however, I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) on a very distinguished maiden speech. He opened his remarks by saying that another new colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Pelling) and, indeed, the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Dr. McDonnell) had set a high hurdle for him to jump over, but everyone who heard his speech would conclude that my hon. Friend jumped over that hurdle and made it look easier than we all know it truly was. I congratulate him again on an excellent speech that came over extremely well.
	I unreservedly welcome the rejection of the constitution in the referendums of France and Holland and it is important to be clear why. I am not one who thinks that the constitutional treaty was the finishing touch or keystone for a new superstate. Such a presentation of the constitutional treaty is grossly overblown. I welcome its rejection because I have always thought that the treaty that emerged from the process was a major lost opportunity for Europe and I am delighted that the political classes in Europe have a second chance to produce a new constitutional arrangement that addresses the needs of the whole of Europe at the beginning of the 21st century. If we are to achieve that, we must be specific about the nature of the problems that we currently face and how best to take the opportunity to deal with them.
	I am not one who believes that the problems that Europe has encountered as the European Union has grown and as the world has become more complex should lead us to the conclusion that we should give up on the European project. I am an unapologetic Europhile and I believe that the motivation that led us first to join and then to develop the EU is still correct, but we must be clear about precisely which objectives are achievable. Some of the objectives that were written into the treaties as we have gone along have proved, in the light of experience, to be over-ambitious, so we should consciously drop them. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood suggested that we should consciously drop the commitment to build an ever-closer union. He is almost certainly right about that.
	As a former Secretary of State, I used to be responsible for health and, from my point of view, there was no reason for that policy area to be included in the various treaties. I would now delete any reference to an EU angle on health from them. I also used to be responsible at one time for what was then called national heritage. There were some minimalist EU functions attached to that, but again I would now drop them because they are over-ambitious and do not focus on the core of the common interest that should, in my view, be at the heart of the European project.
	Let us be clear about that. First and foremost, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) that the European project has to be about creating a competitive market economy that brings together all the EU member states. Some people talk as though that means no more than a commitment to a customs union, but I believe that it runs very much deeper than that. A successful market economy is not a state of nature. It depends on a very intricate collection of regulations and commitments that are enforced on all the participants in that market economy.
	The EU was established for a central purposeto deliver the political objectives of neo-liberalism. That is greatly to the UK's advantage, and I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins), who says that we should reject the neo-liberal agenda. I am very strongly in favour of that agenda, and the EU's institutions should be designed to deliver it.

Stephen Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which I shall address later in my remarks. It goes to the heart of what I consider to be the constitutional treaty's failings.
	The second policy area in which the EU must engage much more effectively than has been the case so farthe environmental agendawas also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood, and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon. As the latter said, the environment is rising up the political agenda very quickly. Member states have a real common interest in it, and there is a real requirement for a common policy. In contrast, the areas in which I am not in favour of deepening co-operation include security, defence and foreign policy. They are outside what I understand to be the common interest among EU states in ensuring an effective delivery mechanism.
	Why have the existing constitutional arrangements, and the treaty proposals that we can now consider to be dead, been found wanting in respect of delivering the policy agenda that I have set out? I believe that the answer is that the present system is insufficiently flexible for the world in which we now live. It was consciously designed that way by the people who put the arrangements in place in the 1950s. At that time, the concern was to agree a common purpose and make it difficult for countries to resile from it. Therefore, the EU's designers built in the provision that only the European Commission could initiate new proposals, and they also built in the principle of the acquis communautaire.
	However, the dangers that we face today are fundamentally different from the ones that the European institutions were designed to address. In the face of globalisation, those institutions make change too difficult: they slow down the change that is essential to the economic survival and success of the EU's member states. Furthermore, a Europe of 25 states has an institutional resistance to change that makes change more difficult to manage than was the case with the original six member states.
	The balance has therefore shifted fundamentally, and we need to ensure that in future the EU's institutions are much more effective drivers for change. As proof of that, one need only list the items on the change agenda about which the liberals among us, at least, broadly agreeexcessive social costs, misplaced agricultural expenditure, wasteful expenditure in the rest of the budget, the important elements in the world trade round that were mentioned earlier, and the sensitivity surrounding enlargement, especially as it relates to Turkey. All those hugely sensitive items are on the change agenda.
	On the point raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg), the second problem with the existing institutions is that they do not allow the process of change to be driven through. Supporters of the constitutional treaty say that that is exactly why they wanted to extend qualified majority voting and make it easier for the EU to reach decisions. Let us consider that. The changes that I have listed are hugely controversial. One need only consider how the French electorate reacted to the introduction of Turkey, the case for the Anglo-Saxon model or liberal change. However, we need to introduce those changes because power is already seen to be remote. If we streamline the institutions and make them more powerful, it might make it easier for the institutions to introduce unpopular and controversial change, but it will divorce them even further from the electorates to whom they are responsible and build up an even bigger bow wave of resistance to the changes that are essential for the success of the societies of the member states.
	The central point is that if one wants to introduce changeespecially unpopular, difficult changein a democracy, it has to be based on a public dialogue. We cannot expect our electorates to come with us on a journey that is uncomfortable if, to put it crudely, it is explained to them, literally, in a foreign language. Change requires explanation and a public dialogue, and the institutions of the EU as currently constituted do not allow sufficient dialogue to take place to includea fashionable word these daysthe electorates of Europe in the change process that is essential for our survival.
	I support the need for radical change to the institutions of Europe, but the defining characteristics of those changes must be that they allow us to embrace a faster driven change process. If that is to be successful, the changes must be based on a more effective public dialogue and increased accountability by the decision makers to those who elect us. That means that the institutions must be more firmly rooted than the existing ones in the successful democracies based on the nation state, instead of trying to create a European demos. If we have to wait until we have a successful European public dialogue, the Chinese, the Indians and the Americansindeed, all our competitors around the worldwill have left us standing. We do not have time and nor in my mind do we have the will to create a European political debate to support that process. That leads to the conclusion, which I find acceptable, that we should engage the member states and their institutions in supporting the change process. If we do not do that, we shall find that our institutions have become dangerously ossified. We shall also come to regard the European Union as like the pre-Reformation Roman Catholic Church, and that is not a world in which I want to live.

David Chaytor: I disagree. It is a comforting thought that one's viewpoint is only supported by people who have the greatest knowledge, but that was not the case in this instance.
	We are poor at communicating complex political issues. That applies to the UK as well as the EU as a whole. Who knows what will happen to the treaty? It is fairly obvious that there will be a gradual move to withdraw the document. Who knows what other nation states will do after the meeting of the European Council? I hope, as I think many Opposition Members do, that it is not the end of a European constitution.
	In a Union of 25 nations, with more than 400 million people, it is evident that there must be a basic statement of principles and values around which a majority of the electorate can coalesce. The problem is that we have a document to which we refer as a constitutional treaty. The enlarged EU needs a treaty and it also needs a constitution; but to expect people to vote in a referendum on a constitutional treaty of such complexity is unrealistic.
	I am conscious that time is short and I hope to allow one more Member to speak, so I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion. First, it is important that the treaty adapts to the new reality of the EU, and takes into account the fact that it is a Union of 25 nations and that the rules have to be changed. It is entirely reasonable that the leadership of nation states can choose to ratify such a treaty without a referendum. Secondly, if we are to continue to gain public support for the wider European Union, we also need a constitution expressed in simple terms. I would not necessarily cite the American constitution as an example, but other countries have comparatively simple constitutions that people can understand and remember, so they know what they are voting for.
	We need a constitution that establishes basic principles. However, in whatever document we produce in the futureand there will have to be such a documentwe must address basic economic security. Without withdrawing from the commitment to a market economy in the EU, we must recognise that the risks of globalisation are great and that the insecurities of ordinary people are immense. We must give reassurance about those insecurities, and I hope that our Prime Minister will take that message to his colleagues at the European Council later this week.

Ian Pearson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on securing this Adjournment debate on Darfur. The high level of interest that he and others continue to show in Darfur, and in Sudan as a whole, is very welcome.
	Sudan is at a critical juncture. The opportunities presented by the signing of the comprehensive peace agreement on 9 January are clear: the agreement ends more than 20 years of terrible civil war and paves the way towards a more democratic and inclusive system of governance. We must continue to support the parties in implementing this historic agreement, but, as my hon. Friend explained, we must also remain focused on resolving the conflict in Darfur. With almost 2 million people displaced from their homes, it remains one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world today.
	The Government remain gravely concerned about the situation in Darfur and are firmly committed to finding a peaceful solution to the conflict. In the last year, there have been a number of high-level ministerial visits to Sudan, including by the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for International Development and the Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has just completed a further visit to Sudan and is in Addis Ababa, talking to the African Union about its efforts to resolve the crisis.
	During the visit, my right hon. Friend travelled to Darfur, the south of Sudan and Khartoum. In Darfur, he had the opportunity to see for himself the situation of those living in the camps, and to hear their stories, when he visited Abu Shouk and Kalma camps. He also spoke to United Nations and non-governmental organisation representatives in Darfur. It is clear that humanitarian agencies in Darfur face considerable constraints on their activities because of the security situation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud pointed out, continued harassment by the local government, and attacks by the rebels and Arab militia, are limiting the activities of the aid agencies and restricting access.
	Our embassy in Khartoum regularly presses the Government of Sudan on the need to ensure unfettered access for humanitarian workers, and we are also pressing the rebel leaders to stop attacks by their forces on aid convoys. During his visit, my right hon. Friend pressed the First Vice-President on this issue and urged him to prevent intimidation of aid agencies by local authorities. In particular, he raised the case of the two Mdecins sans Frontires workersmy hon. Friend also referred to itwho were detained following the MSF report on rape in Darfur. We expect the issue to be resolved shortly.
	Access for humanitarian agencies will become increasingly difficult during the rainy season, which has just started. The UN and humanitarian agencies are preparing for this by pre-positioning food and non-food items. They are giving particular priority to areas that will become inaccessible by road. Supply of food remains precarious and the UN is reviewing requirements. It faces major challenges in increasing its response and enhancing its distribution and logistics capability. To meet those challenges, there is a need for timely and significant contributions from the international community. The UK has contributed 75 million to the humanitarian programme for Sudan for this financial year, and we are pressing others to do more. Despite the problems faced by the agencies, they are reaching more and more people, thanks to the phenomenal effort of humanitarian workers on the ground. I am sure that the whole House will want to pay tribute to their work.
	My hon. Friend asked about our assessment of the security situation more generally. Insecurity remains unacceptably high, but its causes have changed. The majority of attacks by the rebels and armed militias appear increasingly to be motivated by economic, rather than political, gain. Banditry is on the rise and, against the background of the annual cattle migration from south to north Darfur, tribal tensions are mounting. In recent months, the situation in Darfur has been generally calmer, with a substantial reduction in clashes between the parties, considerably fewer ceasefire violations and a welcome reduction in the number of attacks on civilians. This has been reflected in the UN Secretary-General's monthly reports.
	We welcomed the Government of Sudan's withdrawal in February of their Antonov bombers from Darfur and the fact that, since then, there have been no reported attacks by the air force. The Government of Sudan have also withdrawn from the areas that they occupied in December and January and allowed the African Union's monitors to move in. In his April report, the UN Secretary-General concluded that the Government of Sudan
	did not conduct any attacks against rebels or civilians
	during that month.
	For their part, during this period, the rebels also launched fewer attacks against Government forces, although they continued to attack police stations. Recent weeks, however, have seen an increase in activity by the parties involved, particularly the rebels, who are responsible for a number of attacks on aid convoys and for the detention of humanitarian workers. Our assessment is that the increased rebel activity may have been an attempt to strengthen their negotiating position ahead of the resumption of the Abuja talks. Whatever the reason, we have made it clear that it must stop immediately. Attacks on aid convoys are totally unacceptable and seriously damage the delivery of humanitarian assistance.